So who decides what is extraneous? The scientist is then setting up conditions on the experiment that HE thinks are necessary and that biases the experiment. His assumptions are his own and therefore subjective. There is no truly objective science that can be done. All the data is interpreted based on the particular scientists observations and presumptions. If he doesn't observe something properly or misinterprets it, then the experiment is usless.
Your statement that ID and creationism are extraneous are your opinion only. There is no objective standard to which you can appeal to support your statement. You're presuming that the naturalistic approach to science is neutral and unbiased, but it's not because you are starting with an assumption reflecting your world view.
Wrong. Science is objective, because the data are open for anone to look at. The data can also be reproduced if desired.
"that ID and creationism are extraneous are your opinion only. There is no objective standard to which you can appeal to support your statement."
The scientific method is the objective standard. ID and creationism can not be subject to the scientific method. In fact, they conflict with science. They are in contradiction with science. they are hypoothesis, with no support of any evidence at all.
"You're presuming that the naturalistic approach to science..."
Nothing is presumed. If the matter can be examined with the scientific method, it will be, otherwise if it can't, then it's not science.
"The scientist is then setting up conditions on the experiment that HE thinks are necessary..."
The experimental conditions go with the results and conclusions. That's required for both the scientific method and publication.